Thank you VP Cheney for casting the tie-breaking vote for tax cuts that will move the total per child credit from $600 to $1000 for 2003 and 2004. That is an extra $2000 of much needed money for my family.

What part of your budget will this extra dough go to?

Personally, the extra $2000 from today's tax cut brings my total for child tax credits to $5K - enough to upgrade to a larger vehicle. My DW will be happy.

A $400 refund check will be sent in August to most households who received $600 per child for 2002. This is deceptive. It is not a refund but an advance. So if you receive the August check your credit of $1000 per child will be reduced to $600. My three were born this year so I'll only get an advance for my other two children in August and then a full $1000 per child credit for the triplets when I file taxes for 2003.

This is just great news.

____

David

David

David,

Being a new HOM dad myself and going down to one income, I'm sure this money will be put to good use at our house. My DW is a great budget master, so that money will be used wisely, although I wouldn't mind a little mad money!

Got a question though (I'm full of them lately!), Now that the kids are born, if I claim them as excemptions on my W4, can I still claim the child tax credits? Shame on me, but I'm not real up to date on the whole tax thing.

Yes you can increase your exemptions on your W4. The child credit is an extra way of measuring dependants, not a replacement method of measuring them. Incidentally, most years I max out my exemptions on my W4. I claim more dependants than I'm entitled to claim because I know that my mortgage interest will increase my deductions and make it all even out. The Feds allow this but some states do not so be careful. Last year we moved and signed a new mortgage. Interest is frontloaded and so my deductions will be high for a few years.

_____
David

David

Yeah, someone told me it's illegal in Oklahoma to take more deductions than you'r allowed... kinda like them forcing them to take a loan from me. That doesn't seem right.

I've got an interesting question. Due to a severance package and other various things that occurred last year, I actually reached an income point where my child tax credits were reduced (does that make sense? It's been a couple of months so I don't recall all the details). That won't be happening again this year (not even close!). How will that affect all of this? 5 kids = $2000... I get $600 now and $1400 next april?

Thanks,
Steve

Steve,

You were over the limit for the credit last year. Lucky you. If you are a regular joe again this year you should get $1000 per child off your 2003 taxes - $5000 total. In August you may get $2000 of it as an advance that they are calling a "refund" and the other $3000 will be applied to your filing in April. Is say "may get" because if you didn't qualify for the $600 per child credit on your 2002 taxes the Feds will assume that you still don't qualify and will let you check your qualification again when you file in April. Tha means you may get no advance check of $2000 in August but instead get $5000 off your filing in April.

David

David

David,

I think the idea is for the extra money we get ($2400 for my clan) to go toward stimulating the economy. Being a loyal conservative, how can I do anything but spend it? Actually I guess I already spent it... So much for economic stimulation.

I guess I'm not following your rebate/advance concept. Are you saying that since I get $400 per head in August of 2003, I can only claim $600 per head for my 2003 return in April of 2004? I guess I thought that the $1000 was retroactive for my 2002 return (meaning I was getting a rebate for the return I just filed last month). It is clear as mud to me (as usual).

Please advise.

Regards,

John

http://webpages.charter.net/jnkspencer/index.htm

No it is not a rebate for 2002 taxes it just seems that way. And, it is clear as mud to everyone.

In fact it gets very murky in the future. The credit jumps from $600 to $1,000 this year and next, then falls to $700 for 2005 - 2008, rises to $800 in 2009, returns to $1,000 in 2010, then plunges to $500 in 2011. Got that?!?!

BTW, being another loyal conservative I am further saddened by John McCain's move to the left. He voted against this tax cut. Shame. He and Sen. Zell Miller should just trade parties and get it over with.

David

David

Didn't the guy from Ohio vote against it as well? Who was it, voinovich?

I hate to toss into the mix a socio-political comment but:
the media is talking about how this tax break will favor the rich, and the dems are talking about how this tax cut is ear marked for the wealthiest of Americans. I bet that each and every one of us falls short of millionairre status, heck, all of us have jobs and some of our wives work too.

Anyway, the extra cash will likely allow us to _gasp_ make ends meet, that is, to pay into our credit cards rather than letting their balance grow. Perhaps we might re-finance the house again to lower that monthly obligation and, in the end, we could end up just ahead enough so we can start saving for the triplet college fund.

By no means are we the only family that runs a very fine line between our intake and output on the financial balance sheets. And further, this money isn't the government giving to us... oh no, this is our money, they are merely taking less. And failure to take is NOT giving.




Paul
Proud Father of the Simonet3
Ashlyn Elizabeth
Alexander Mattingly Paul
Abigail Marie
12-27-02, 34w4d

Paul
Ashlyn, Alexander, Abigail
12-27-02, 34w4d

The Democrats are going to have a hard time pushing repeal of this. Several of their candidates like Gephardt are pleding to repeal the 2001 tax cut. I'm sure they will be saying the 2003 cut too soon. Do they really think that a $1000-2000 dollar tax increase will be appealing to a middle class family of four. Not to mention Gephardt's health care tax, that's another $1,500. If you have insurance already, you are out of luck.

As to what to do with the extra credit, haven't made up my mind yet. I'm sure DW will have something to say.

Paul,

You are so correct. It is easy to get caught thinking of this as some favor when really it is overdue. It is our money and we should have more control over it. Sure, some would say that we use more government services - a highly debatable question. But we should get credit for doing more than our share in other areas. Large families are heavy consumers of goods and services. The government should pay us for keeping the economy going.

_____
David

David

Paul,

Speak for yourself buddy! As I write this the chauffeur is out front polishing up the Bently to whisk us off to the yacht for our weekend cruise. Just kidding...

Actually if you have a house. If you have earned anything by the sweat of your brow. If you make over $40K. You ARE wealthy according to many liberals in our government. Consequently, according to this logic, I should be getting $24000 back not $2400.

Oh well, I guess I could roll the 'rebate' into stocks and double-dip the capital gains benefit on the dividends....

Regards,

John

http://webpages.charter.net/jnkspencer/index.htm

Don't spend too much of it yet, I was only allowed to claim three child tax credits on this past years' tax return. My taxes were prepared professionally and I even checked with an accountant, I could only claim three child tax credits of $600. I don't know if this is true again this year or not.

As for the larger total tax savings going to the wealthy, that makes sense since they pay more in taxes. If anyone wants to do the math, the percentage of tax savings to taxes paid by the wealthier would be lower than the percentage of tax savings to taxes paid by lower income americans. Here are some quick figures from MSNBC - definately not a conservative news outlet.

A couple paying $69k in taxes(~23%) on income over $300k will save about $7000(~10% tax reduction) in annual taxes. The $300k couple does not qualify for the tax credit at all.

A couple paying $12k in taxes on income of $100k(~12%) will be save $2300(~19% tax reduction).

A couple earning $50k and paying $2600(~5%) in taxes will save $1100(~40%).

Yes, the total $ of the tax cut is greater for the wealthier, but the total taxes paid and total percent of income paid is much greater.

And before I get blasted, I am definately not in the top two categories.

Jonathan
Dad to Al 18), Dan(16)
and Aidan, Zachary, and Jillian (9-01)

Jonathan
Dad to Ally(25), Dan(23),
and Aidan, Zachary, and Jillian (8)

You know the best part of our tax system?

Take your forms to 3 separate accountants and you will get three separate tax liabilities.

-Paul


Paul
Proud Father of the Simonet3
Ashlyn Elizabeth
Alexander Mattingly Paul
Abigail Marie
12-27-02, 34w4d

Paul
Ashlyn, Alexander, Abigail
12-27-02, 34w4d

Paul,

Heck, take your forms to three seperate IRS offices and get three seperate liabilities.

David

David

And the couple earning 10K to 26K gets squat. Sound right to you? Your beloved Republican Congress didn't have the guts to cut some of the pork out of their own districts to give the really low-income families the same chance to 'help the economy'. Which would you rather, spending a few hundred this summer, or funding programs for better education or health care when your kids are ready to go to school? Pre-election robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't go over too well with me. Just my opinion.
BTW, I'm using dw's login, so don't bother flaming her.
O.A.

Yes, and my beloved democtratic state gov't here in Oklahoma can only focus on one thing... gambling... the only solution to our budget crisis is to find ways to bring in more money, not to find ways to cut money out.

It shouldn't be 'democratic' vs. 'republican', it should be right vs. wrong. But who decides what's right and what's wrong?

Gov't isn't supposed to be all things to all people. Yep, education is critical. Yep, health care is important. But throwing more money at them is not the solution. Someone has to make the tough decisions and get the spending under control before I want gov't putting more money into them. But no one wants to do that.

O.A.

Actually it does sound about right. It seems to me that a credit is provided against something you have paid for (or will pay for). If you haven't kicked any money in how can you expect a credit? Just try going into WalMart and saying "Hey I'd like store credit for this stuff I didn't buy here" (actually it would be more like going in with no stuff at all and asking for store credit in return). I'm sure they will educate you on the nuances of the subject.

As for cutting pork to fund stuff (social or otherwise), there is plenty to go around in Democratic districts as well. Why no concern aimed in that direction as well?

Regards,

John

http://webpages.charter.net/jnkspencer/index.htm

Lets face it, more money for education translates to better salary for teachers. As an educator, I look at this as a pay raise for myself. It is more money than I would receive if the money was going to the school systems. I like it. And I am a pretty damn good teacher no matter what my pay is.

Tripdaddy
Father of Sam, Rob, & Trey

I wish I could direct money to you... that's what sucks in Oklahoma... they're doing all this gambling crap to 'raise money for education' - and IF it passes, it'll be 2 years before the first dime is put into education... and that will not even help the teachers, as it's only for capital expenditures... and they'll pull out the excess and put it back into the general fund!

Our governor has held education hostage for his freekin' lottery and it sucks because they're laying off good teachers!

Steve,

I would be really skeptical if I were you. The gambling (we call it 'gaming' here in Louisiana since our constitution specifically prohibits gambling)industry uses funds for education as a hook to get public interest (or more accurately as leverage for politicians to rationalize voting for it). In practice very few dollars find their way into education funding in any state that has approved gambling. In Louisiana we now have river goat 'gaming', one land based mega-casino, several reservation based casinos, state lottery, Powerball lottery, a governor and an insurance commissioner in the slammer (related to selling 'gaming' licenses) but we do not have decent schools. As far as I can tell there has been no benefit to education in Louisiana (our schools are the worst in the country) even though we have had approved 'gaming' here for around 10 years.

Please check it out carefully and insist upon accountability in the budgetary process before endorsing gambling legislation. I hope it works for you. It didn't for us...

Regards,

John

http://webpages.charter.net/jnkspencer/index.htm

It has been checked out, and it sucks. All of the extra money, if there is any, will go into the capital improvements. That would be fine, if they'd shift the other CI $$s to things like salaries. But they're not, they'll just pull it back into the state's general fund.

Ok's education system is in shambles. We have so many school discricts that the overhead is immense. But no one will talk about consolidating. It really sucks.

Here's the beauty of our Governor - he says that 'the people need to decide' about gaming - he told the senate to ignore what their logic and conscious told them about how bad gaming would be for the state, and to let the people decide (why do we elect these guys and then ask them to NOT represent us). So he arm-twisted a bill through (and yes, it was arm-twisting - it didn't pass the first time, but after 3 days of 'reconsideration' where senators felt way too much pressure, it passed) that puts gaming to a vote of the people.

AND THEN he make a comment that (in general, not about gaming) 'legislation is difficult to understand, so legislature needs more lawyers and less farmers and teachers.' Well, this gaming bill is a nightmare to read. So he asked his legislature (who at least SEES legislation regularly) to not vote for it's constituency, but to have the uneducated public vote on the bill instead.

This governor and democratic house/senate leadership is destroying oklahoma. It's very sad. On a good note, however, a different gaming bill, relating to gaming at horse tracks, got voted down!

Oh yeah, our state voted last year to make cock-fighting illegal in a vote of the people. Ok was one of the last 2 states to have legalized cock fighting. Now they're trying to overturn A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE and make it such a minor fine that the black market cock-fighting will run rampant.

Grr... I hate politics!

Actually the couple earning 10- 26K didn't pay anything so why should they get money back? They didn't give in the first place.

To be totally honest, I'd rather the federal government not pay for anyone healthcare or daycare or dinner. I'd like to keep more of what I earn and not let the government decide how much of my income needs to go to those who have not earned anything. The amount of money the federal government uses to administer these programs is obscene. I truly believe that if people and businesses were not taxed a such a high rate, more money would be available for charitable giving.

I think it is wonderful that we finally have a Republican Congress. It's just too bad that I am mis-represented by all Democrats being from Massachusetts. I believe the interns feel safer also.

Jonathan
Dad to Al 18), Dan(16)
and Aidan, Zachary, and Jillian (9-01)

Jonathan
Dad to Ally(25), Dan(23),
and Aidan, Zachary, and Jillian (8)

Pay the tax, get a rebate. Pay no tax to begin with, get no rebate. Pretty simple concept if you ask me.

If you or other Dems want to give money to people, be honest about it and call it what it is - AN INCREASE IN WELFARE PAYMENTS. Welfare is when you get something for nothing. A tax rebate is when you GET BACK your OWN hard-earned dollars.

BTW, a report a few years ago determined that those in the lowest tax brackets, or no tax bracket, actually spent TWICE AS MUCH as they earned when all of the governement programs and entitlements were taken into consideration.

I'm on a roll, TIME TO RANT

The wealthiest 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes. After the tax plan, that same 50% will pay 97% and change. So, as a percentage, we will be paying more of the burden. This means that half of the population of this great country pays basically no federal taxes. Guess which party most of them belong to?

I would like to smack the next reporter or talking head that states that the tax cut will "cost" the government money. Last time I read the constituion, we had a governement of, by , and fot the people. So, let's be honest and state that the tax cut will "save" money for the people who pay it.

The Democratic State of Chicago (if you live in Illinois you know what I mean) is about to raise the minimum wage by $1.35 or so. This is a training wage for someone with little or no skills. Most of these jobs require you to show up on time and be clean. By raising the wage for such a low level of skills you are distorting the reward scenario for those of us who have gone out there and learned a skill to properly support a family. This will lead to fewer people willing to make the investment in time and effort and money to get what would then be a smaller incremental increase for their greater skill set. They will settle for the higher minimum, and more people will end up looking to the government for support.

McCain is a RINO ass. Small man with a big ego. He is not a war hero. You are not a hero just becuase you were a POW. If that was the case, POWs would recieve the CMH. PLEASE>>>I am not knocking POW's or their sacrifice, but the word Hero has begun to lose it's intended meaning. Anyone who is willing to defend this country deserves to be held in high regard. And definitely much higher regard than, say, a certain US Senator from West Virginia who used to wear a sheet (and was leader of the Senate Democrats). Where is Jesse when you really need him?

Can anyone tell me the differences between the nine people campaigning for the Democratic nomincation?

Don't you just love that the New York Times is being bent over the couch for their very poor reporting, liberal bias, and outright fabriciations?

Paraphrasing Dennis Miller, if your entire repertoire of anti-war slogans in "No blood for oil" then go back to your high school and beat them with the diploma that you obviously did not earn.

Phew. I'm done for now.

Good to get that off of my chest.

Regards,

Mike

Proud Daddy of Kate, Michael, Xander 2/01

Regards,

Mike

Proud Daddy of Three

probably towards the next house. if I can only sell my current one!

Mike

GBG born 6/12/01

Hmm.... do I sense a recurring theme in your posts lately?

How can a person who does not pay taxes get a tax rebate?

Last year at this time I still had not been notified that we would be having triplets. Sure, I knew my wife was pregnant, and if this tax edit were put in, it would have granted us ZERO dollars. Not b/c of our wages, but b/c we had NO kids. Now that we have three, we are eligible for a large tax break... but the government is not GIVING us anything. They are merely taking less.

Failure to take is NOT giving. Please allow our talking heads to figure this out.

Another thing... 10% of zero is zero. 20% of zero is ZERO. 50% of ZERO is still ZERO. If you are not paying federal income tax, you are paying zero. If a percent discount (tax break) is applied, it would grant you a decrease in taxes of ZERO dollars. That should not be a difficult concept, but it is.

Now, what will we do with the extra cash... first of all, let us hope we get it. Both my wife and I work and have very little money left over for things like formula, mortgage, child care, etc. This wasnt a problem while we were DINKS. I bet it will help us to try and pay off some credit cards or allow us to refinance again. It wont make the decision a cinch to buy that yacht or to join that country club.

-Paul


Paul
Proud Father of the Simonet3
Ashlyn Elizabeth
Alexander Mattingly Paul
Abigail Marie
12-27-02, 34w4d

Paul
Ashlyn, Alexander, Abigail
12-27-02, 34w4d

RM: I am consumed w/ trying to sell my friggin house. Keep you fingers crossed for us.

Mike.

GBG born 6/12/01

Hey bud:
We languished in the same boat. Took us almost 3 years and a loss of almost $30K to sell our house. But we recouped that loss into the market, and things turned out. At times, we began to lose faith. We kept strong, sold the house, solved the fertility problem, etc. Fingers are crossed, prayers your way also.


Paul
Proud Father of the Simonet3
Ashlyn Elizabeth
Alexander Mattingly Paul
Abigail Marie
12-27-02, 34w4d

Paul
Ashlyn, Alexander, Abigail
12-27-02, 34w4d